D.P. Gupta, J.
1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Two submissions were made by learned Counsel. In the first place, he urged that Rule 7A of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 is ultra vires of the provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution of India because While Article 234 vests the power of appointment of a Judicial Officer of Subordinate Judiciary in the Governor of the State, Rule 7A authorises the High Court to make promotions to the post of Civil Judge from amongst officers holding posts of Munsifs. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a Munsif in a substantive capacity by the Governor and that is Hot challenged by the petitioner. The question of 'further promotion from' Inter post of Munsif to that of Civil Judge, within the Rajasthan Judicial Service, is not governed by die provisions of Article 234 of the Constitution, Article 234 provides that the control over District Courts and Courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of persons belonging to the judicial Service of the State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge, shall be vested in the High Court. Thus the matter of promotion of a person belonging to the Judicial Service of the State, from the post of Munsif to the post of Civil Judge, vests entirely and solely in High Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution. The matter if clinched by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjab & Haryana High Court v. State of Haryana : 3SCR365 where it has been held that the control within the meaning of Article 235 of the Constitution includes the power of confirmation and promotion. Once a person is initially appointed by the Governor as a member of the Judicial Service or as a District Judge, the subsequent confirmation or promotion from one post to the another within the Service vests in the High Court. Learned Counsel had not much to say in this matter after the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was brought to his notice. The contention is, therefore, repelled.
3. The other contention of the learned Counsel is that the petitioner was not considered was the respondents for promotion to the post of Civil Judge and Chief judicial Magistrate. I had called upon the learned Deputy, Government Advocate to produce the relevant record of this Court regarding the promotions from the post of Munsif to the posts of Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate. The record of the Full Court circulation has been placed before me and having gone through the same I am convinced that the petitioner's case for promotion to the posts of Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate was considered on each occasion, as and whether person junior to the petitioner vas considered for such promotion. After the disciplinary inquiry. Which had been initiated against the petitioner, arrive to an end and he was exonerated of the charges, the petitioner submitted a representation which was also considered by this Court. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the High Court did not consider it proper to promote the petitioner after duly considering his case and the representation submitted by him was also rejected after due consideration. The petitioner had only a right to be considered and if after such consideration the High Court did not think it proper to promote the petitioner on the respect of a Civil Judge, then the petitioner cannot be heard to complain of the breach of any fundamental right or a legal right.
4. No other submission was made before me by the learned Counsel. The writ petition is dismissed.